John Cuthber

"Well I did read something about semi covalent bonding between silver and sulphide ions in silver sulphide so you may actually be right in saying that the regular household ammonia is not strong enough to break that bond and dissolve the silver sulphide." I'm right; not because you read something, but because I'm right. The reason I know it's right is that I tried it. "And by the way John......as far as dipping your silver wire in ammonia....... Coke and ammonia removes the tarnish from 1c and 2c pieces, but you usually have to leave them in it over night to notice any difference." Are these coins silver or is your point irrelevant? If you watch the vid (or any of loads like it) you will see that this "2Al(s) + 3Ag2S(s) + 6H2O -> 6Ag(s) + 2Al2(OH)3(s) + 3H2S(aq) " is a perfectly valid equation (apart from the messed up formula). I have news for you. Both silver and aluminium are electrical conductors, so the transfer of electrons from Al to Ag+ ions can take place just fine. Anyway there are a series of reactions, but the overall result might as well be 3Ag2S +Al --> Al2S3 +3 Ag and Al2S3 +3 H2O --> Al2O3 + 3 H2S Al2O3 +2 OH- +H2O -->2 Al(OH)4 - H2S + Na2CO3 ---> CO2 + H2O + Na2S but that reaction isn't anything like complete- the reaction mixture smells of H2S when you do this experiment. Now, perhaps you could explain why it was that you started to argue without actually finding out what the facts were?

Thank you for confirming the extent of your ignorance. You may find this helpful. http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch18/ksp.php Incidentally wiki does know that the solubilities of the chloride and bromide differ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table#S Perhaps the most important observation is that a simple experiment with some tarnished silver wire and a solution of ammonia has confirmed that you are wrong, the sulphide does not dissolve in ammonia. I could post a picture if it would help. This "John it is utterly impossible for the aluminium foil or the aluminium saucpan to reduce the silver sulphide to silver metal. The only way that can happen is if the reductant (aluminium) is in solution." is obvious nonsense too. If I put a nail in some copper sulphate solution the iron reduces the Cu++ ions to Cu metal. If I do the same with a solution of silver nitrate I get metallic silver. I can use Al instead of iron but, unless I remove the oxide film from the Al, it won't work very well. One way to remove that oxide is to dissolve it in an alkali like hot sodium carbonate solution.

Don't make trite comments. Answer the question. Your silly plan wipes out a lot of genes. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. You say they will come back quickly. Well, since that statement is at odds with genetics, can you explain why you believe it.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about. The solubility of the original salt has a lot to do with whether or not the salt- say the sulphide- will dissolve in a complexing agent like ammonia. As I said, silver iodide isn't soluble in aqueous ammonia, but silver chloride is. The complex formed is the same in both cases. The difference is that silver iodide is a lot less soluble. The reaction does not make silver carbonate so the solubility of that salt is irrelevant. There was no reason for you to bring it up. This bit of your post "Found this regarding the use if bicarbonate to clean silver. It apparently requires aluminium in the form of a saucpan or scrunched up foil. So there is more going on here that meets the eye. I am not familiar with complex ions involving silver and aluminium but this suggests to me that this is what is involved in the cleaning process here. I know that aluminium dissolves in alkaline solutions to form complex ions with hydroxide ions (generating H2 in the process)." shows that you have entirely missed the point of the reaction. The silver sulphide is reduced to metallic silver. You say ammonia " Might do a quicker job if you combined the ammonia with a mild abrasive such as toothpaste.". Did you watch the video? It's not like the reaction is slow.

I think you are half right.

I'm a long way from sure that the ammonia complex is strong enough to dissolve silver sulphide. It won't dissolve silver iodide and I think the sulphide is even less soluble than that. Anyway, it doesn't actually answer the original question. I have used the method given- I typically use a cup full of boiling water and a teaspoon full of baking soda (it fizzes when you dissolve it) then pour that into a glass bowl with the silver lying on a piece of aluminium foil. It works very well and I don't think the amounts of salt or whatever are that critical. I think you just need fairly alkaline conditions. It really is quite impressive the first time you see it.

I'd oxidise the solution to convert all the Fe to Fe+++ then add ammonia solution slowly to ppt all the Fe as Fe(OH)3 which is much less soluble than the Nd(OH)3. An alternative would be to extract Fe(+++) from a solution of the salts in excess HCl with ether- but that only works if you have ether.

All statements are false, for a given definition of false.

"I meant our diversity wont be negatively effected long enough to cause our species harm. We will temporarily lose some diversity but will gain it back quickly. " How? That's just not how it works.

" Yes it will decrees our diversity temporarily, but not long enough to make a difference, we will become just as diverse, just a whole lot smarter." Make up your mind. If it won't make a difference then it's not worth doing. If it does make a difference then we shouldn't do it. Incidentally, who, in your brave new world, is going to empty the bins?

Yes, but it wouldn't really be in the spirit of the site to do so.

Thanks Eugenics, The jokes are getting better and better. In case anyone is wondering, Godwin's law doesn't apply when people are talking about things that really are as preposterously offensive as the Nazis. The idea of eugenics is one of their better known irrationalities. "They embarrass me because they are the same species as me. I feel like after billions of years of evolution the outcome should be a little better than that..." They may well think the same about you and, from my point of view, they are right. And you really need to look up big words like "symbiotically" before you use them so wrongly. In your example, all the people and all the bugs die. That's also the problem with eugenics. I could go on, but I'm tired and so are your arguments. In the morning, I will be a lot fresher.

Congratulations! You have just demolished your own arguments much better than I could have hoped to. Also, while I admit I was getting some fun out of making a fool of you, again, you have done such a good job I can't hope to do better. Perhaps, by way of compensation, you would like to tell a few more of those jokes about me being a conformist sheep. I, for one, found them hilarious and I think others here did too.

Someone already did it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment#Forces_between_two_magnetic_dipoles though I have to admit I'm struggling to understand the outcome.

Once you have finished making plainly silly comments about my motivation and such, please feel free to address the point I made. Why don't you think biodiversity works for humans? It's you who would throw the baby out with the bathwater. You seek to throw out "problems" that mankind has successfully dealt with since before we were mankind- and, to do it you intend to destroy a lot of valuable people (and their genetic variability). Oh, and don't get me started on the use of IQ as a selection criterion. It's well known for being biassed in a number of ways, not least, race. Why not cut out the middle man and just kill off the black people? That might not be your intention- but it would be the effect of your poor choice of selection method. It seems odd to me that you have noticed that "Eugenics was a widely accepted science ... and it became infamous. " but have yet to realise why. And, re "I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100. I didn't say everyone below the average IQ should be sterilized, I said everyone below 100. " LOL 100 is the average- by definition.so it is logically equivalent to replace one term by the other To paraphrase. I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100. I didn't say everyone below 100 should be sterilized, I said everyone below 100. But it's the self referential parody that really cracked me up "I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100." Well, you plainly don't, so perhaps it isn't so perhaps we ought to start with you.

Thanks, I was going to go with the short snappy version. "Eugenics is a great idea- we should start with the people who don't understand the importance of human biodiversity" but I was concerned that some people might not understand it. As it turns out, Eugenics initially ignored it anyway. Perhaps we should start with him.

The problem is that you didn't make any measurements. If you had done so you would realise that you were talking nonsense.

It's odd that most people understand that biodiversity is a good thing, but some idiots fail to realise that it applies to us too. Humans are not very big or very strong. Our major asset in terms of success is that we can communicate so well and cooperate. Our ability to communicate is the basis of our ability to cooperate, and it is that cooperation that explains why we are so successful. Perhaps the first group we should "cleanse" from the species is not the slow learners or the unfit, but those who don't understand the importance of cooperation. A way to identify them would be to see who thinks eugenics is a good idea, after all- you never seem to hear anyone saying "I'm going to kill myself because it will improve the gene pool" they always plan to kill others.

If I had written "tacidly" that might have been relevant.

Since we didn't care about 3E17 Bq of 85 Kr we are not going to care about 1.3E 16 Bq of 3H Incidentally, re " That's a stable, inert compound." Not in the presence of water it isn't , so you would have to keep it away from air.

"Our diet is now, according to Katherine Milton, 95% removed from what it used to be when we evolved in the jungles of Africa. " Then she is an idiot. What I eat is practically 100% food. Not only that but because I'm a rich Westerner I can afford to make sure that it's all of good quality, properly cooked (where appropriate) and above all, free from decay and such. Our nearest relatives- the chimps- are omnivores and so are we ( you can tell from the teeth).

"or would they just bond back to H2O under cooling?" yes. And you would be back where you started.

How do you propose to separate the O2 and the H2?

"I'm not suggesting that people without language cannot think (that would be silly), I'm wondering what thought would be like without language and whether language is the enabler of HIGHER thought (not all thought)" Higher than what? "Diagrams and gestures are part of language (some would say a language in their own right). Only if you draw them with your tongue. "You seem to have missed the point somewhat... There clearly is some connection between language and thought, my question is about how deep that connection goes and whether it has a bearing on the way we think. NLP is practised by many people as a way to modify thought processes and attitudes using language (to my limited knowledge of NLP)." NLP is even more questionable than this thread. "Some languages don't translate very well at all, the are some Japanese words that we need to give long and rambling expanations of and still dont quite convey the true meaning, they just dont work in English... " Ironically, the answer to that is to ask you to explain what one of these inexplicable things is.

Terrorism is just crime. If you blow stuff up that's a crime- criminal damage or causing an explosion or whatever. The person who did it has a mistake in their mind that causes them to believe it's the right thing to do. The same with murder. It doesn't matter if you do it "in the name of (Insert cause here)" or what. If the media stopped glorifying it with a special title I suspect it would lose some of its appeal. That would probably reduce the incidence. Also I'm not sure if the bizarre things that various governments have done in the name of combating terrorism are doing more harm than good. I can't say for certain that it's done to scare the people, but it sure looks that way. It has a lot in common with the "war on drugs". The only way to get close to "winning" is to sacrifice all your freedom. BTW, Justin "If I've given up any personal freedoms as a result of terrorism and our policies concerning terrorism, then I haven't noticed." At the trivial end of the scale, you have given up the right to board an aircraft without taking your shoes and socks off first. As an amateur chemist I now can't buy some chemicals because it's assumed that anyone who wants them is a terrorist. If all you wanted to do was sit at home, watch TV; play football, and vote the same way your dad did then OK, you haven't lost anything.